One Identity Safeguard Reviews

We use the on-demand version. We use the solution for monitoring and connection to the customer's server for Windows and Linux.

It's easier to connect to the server and it makes it more secure. We've seen about a 40% improvement in that regard.

The monitoring system is very good.

It has a very nice user interface.

The product is very fast to implement.

We use the solution's transparent mode for privileged sessions.

There is a lack of documentation and many problems with the plugins.

I did run into problems with transparent mode for privileged sessions. We didn't connect correctly to the server. It was an issue we had with the customer's server, not the product itself.

The security of the connection could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for one year. 

It's not completely stable. Sometimes the newest version does not support an older version.

The solution is not so scalable. 

Mabe 20 or so users are leveraging it in our organization. They are admins. 

We use regular support. The response times are too long. Sometimes it could take days. 

Positive

I previously used CyberArk. I changed companies, and now I work with this product. I find Safeguard to be easier to implement, however, it does lack documentation.

It is fast to implement. 

While the process is not technically complex, there was a lack of documentation and we had to figure out how to do it ourselves. The deployment took three weeks. We had two people working on the process.

We have yet to witness an ROI.

The solution is offered at a good price. We pay a monthly fee. I'm not sure of the exact cost we pay.

I'm a product partner. 

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I have yet to use the cloud assistant feature, so I can't say much about that aspect of the solution. We also do not use the solution's secure remote access feature for privileged users. We don't have it integrated with DevOps or RPA.

While basic knowledge is important, there isn't much training required to start using the solution. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to manage passwords and use for the RDP access. 

Our infrastructure is three SPPs and two SPSs. This is across 1,000 users and approximately 500 targets. 

Safeguard can define and update processes and procedures into the security framework of a company, including mobile. It allows us to change the policies and configurations on a mass scale in regards to security.

The most interesting thing about this product is it is very easy to implement and configure as well as its usability. Also, for the final user, the work experience doesn't change when using the SPS for the Linux administrator, which is fantastic. You change only a little bit of the connection. Everything else is really easy.

I just received a question from a customer in regards to a connection with Oracle OID. I tried to integrate Safeguard with the Oracle YAML as well as something else to manage the groups and users from a different system, like AD or LDAP. This one feature could be better. At this moment, the platform system can only use the integration with LDAP or AD. The software for research and development to create a connector to a YAML platform can be very complicated.

I started using it two years ago.

It is a very stable system. There are no problems when using the platform.

The scalability is fantastic. It is very easy to connect and use the solution, if you need it.

There are two different supports: one for SPS and another for SPP. The technical preparation of the support is very high. They have very quickly given me the solution for a couple of issues that I have seen.

We switched from CyberArk to Safeguard. In order to manage CyberArk, it is a very big effort. The platform is very complex. The management system of Safeguard is very easy. Also, the configuration for the targeted user is easier in Safeguard rather than CyberArk. Lastly, the cost of CyberArk's licensing is very expensive.

We try to understand what the customer needs in order to fit the solution for what they want, then we plan all the activities based on that.

We can deploy the system in a couple of days, then the system is up and running. The next step is importing the whole system. The time frame of this depends on many targets the customer has, but it doesn't take too long.

I work at a system integrator, designing and implementing the solution for our customers. I think our customers see a return of the investment using this solution.

Safeguard is cheaper than CyberArk.

It is a good solution. There is no limit to its usage in a company, e.g., IT or financial.

Check the basic rules in the documentation because the solution is easy to use.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

We use Safeguard for privileged sessions. It's primarily used as a solution for accessing our production environments.

We were able to take an environment where we had several hosts managed by different people and consolidate that into a single, centrally managed solution.

The extensible framework for authentication is one of the most valuable features. We use an MFA plug-in and a lot of different factors, depending on what the business use-cases are. And of course, the auditing functionality is also valuable.

We have also found the solution to be extensible through cloud-delivered services. It's worked out well. The SPS instances we use are located on-premise, but we can still utilize them to access resources in the cloud. That's not a problem. We haven't deployed any SPS itself in the cloud, but it works fine for our cloud environments.

Feature-wise, right now, it has most of the features that we're looking for. It could improve a bit on the management side of things. One example would be when doing an upgrade. We have a highly-available appliance spare, and even though we have two nodes, there's no way to do an upgrade without taking everything completely offline. It would be nice if they could improve that.

The product has generally been stable. We have had some issues, mainly due to the types of traffic. Our end-users are doing different things through SSH tunnels that were not expected on the appliance. We've been working with support to resolve that.

The product is scalable.

Tech support has been great. They've been responsive and knowledgeable, so we've been happy with them.

It took us about three or four weeks for the initial setup and deploy. Part of that was developing a plug-in for the multi-factor authentication. We were able to do it in a way that wasn't disruptive, with our current infrastructure. At their discretion, the end-users were allowed to move over, one-by-one. After we deployed it, it took about two months for all of the users to actually migrate over to using it.

• Fully transparent for users.
• Supports many protocols.
• Full OCR indexing: You can find anything that happened in sessions, including commands, programs opened, etc. Without OCR, you would only be able to find who did which sessions, but not the content of the sessions or what admins have been doing.
• Non-agent approach: A very important feature that is able to monitor access to devices which are not computers, such as switches, firewalls, or any device which uses SSH, TELNET, HTTPS. You are able to monitor access to the Internet by web browser, because SCB can work as a HTTP/S proxy.

Our customers use it to provide full privileged-access monitoring for external users/administrators, so they are fully compliant and still have easy access to external user’s activity.

VMware PCoIP protocol support: Many customers are switching from normal computers/environment to VDI infrastructure and some of them are switching to VMware Horizon that uses PCoIP protocol, which is not supported right now.

Central management for more SCB boxes: If you have many boxes in a customer infrastructure (right now we have one customer of this kind in POC and they will need eight boxes) with the same configuration/purpose, you have to do everything 8x. I know this feature is on the roadmap, but nobody knows when it will be available.

I’ve been using Balabit for six years.

We have not had stability issues.

We have not had scalability issues.

I give technical support a 4.5/5.

We did not use any previous solutions.

It was super easy to deploy, not complicated, and did not have the hidden Capex that competitors do!

It’s an easy license model; you can choose virtual or hardware appliances.

We evaluated ObserveIT and CyberArk.

Try more functions and use them! It’s a very powerful product; much more complex than all other competitors. But, almost all companies use it on less than 30% of their infrastructure.

I have found the most useful feature of One Identity Safeguard to be Privileged Sessions.

When we compare One Identity Safeguard with Cyberark, we know CyberArk has other tools or other features that are more complex and more useful for the customers. For example, I have one customer that wants to elevate the permission that is available in CyberArk. 

Another example is, I have one potential customer that wants to use some feature that is available only in CyberArk. The scenario is one user request a patient, however, that user doesn't have the permissions. In that request, he wants to request more permissions elevation and more rights under the live connection. This can be done in CyberArk and not in One Identity Safeguard.

We need to allow more permissions for the user who requests access for the previous account in a live connection.

CyberArk gives stronger features for safeguarding at this moment.

I have been using One Identity Safeguard for approximately one year.

One Identity Safeguard is a stable solution.

I have found One Identity Safeguard to be scalable.

I have contacted support. I can create tickets for support and in approximately one hour, I have a response from the support. They are very quick.

I have previously used Cyberark.

The initial setup of One Identity Safeguard was simple. In one week we can be ready to fully operate.

My advice to others wanting to implement this solution is to do the implementation slowly and concentrate.

I rate One Identity Safeguard a nine out of ten.

One Identity Safeguard is used by administrators to access their devices. They will log in using identity management in order to secure the administrator's login.

One Identity Safeguard can improve by having more integration with multiple devices.

I have been using One Identity Safeguard for approximately one year.

I have found One Identity Safeguard to be stable.

The scalability of One Identity Safeguard is good, we can add multiple devices.

We have approximately 40 administrates using this solution in my organization.

We plan to increase usage in the future.

I have not contacted support.

The initial installation was simple.

The full deployment took approximately a couple of months. Not because of the One Identity Safeguard, but because of us, we were busy doing other projects in parallel.

We used a third-party vendor for the implementation and we had a good experience with them.

My advice to others is One Identity Safeguard is a must to have because it's part of the cybersecurity framework, such as Nest ISO. We should have an identity management solution to manage the whole identity, such as privileged users.

I rate One Identity Safeguard an eight out of ten.

One of the most valuable features is that it supports the Linux operating system. Also, the transparent mode for privileged sessions is a very good solution.

On a scale of one to ten, the stability is an eight.

The scalability is great.

Technical support is great. We use the case platform.

We didn't switch from another product. Using this solution has been a great decision in helping with our tasks.

Deployment of the solution took two to three months. Our engineers installed it.

It's a great product for our industry, which is banking.

We use Safeguard to manage users when the client wants to record all discussions on an LDAP. The solution is deployed on a VMware ESXI because all our clients don't want a physical appliance. We average about 300 to 500 connections to Safeguard.

Safeguard has the ability to record and retrieve in the full-video format.

We have issues using Safeguard to record http/https connection in a video formt. Currently, they don't have a mechanism to record this type of connection.

We've been working with One Identity Safeguard for about eight months. I work as an integrator for solutions like PAM and One Identity. We make alterations and integrate the solution. 

We run One Identity Safeguard on a VM, so we can create as many as we need. 

I had an issue about a week ago because we were migrating from an old VM to a new one. I opened a ticket, and they responded, but I didn't get a solution. 

We set up a VM appliance and configured it then deployed the solution. The typical time for deployment and configuration is about three to five days.

I rate One Identity Safeguard eight out of 10. It's an excellent solution and a perfect fit for our use case.